>Jim Cassell tells me that Indirect.Com (Canter & Siegel attorneys) have >lost USENET privledges due to their indiscriminant posting of their sales >pitch. Apparently, their MO is to send it to a few lists at a time (maybe >yesterday was their day to pick on statisticians?) and raise the ire of >thousands at a time instead of millions all at once (the better to deal >with the incoming mail, I suppose). > >It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to filter out *.indirect.com, unless you >actually WANT to hear from Canter & Siegel. > >/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]> (203) 486-2489 voice > Professor of Marketing (203) 486-5246 fax Wait a minute! Internet Direct (indirect.com) is NOT owned by Canter & Siegel. They are a commercial service provider (similar to panix.com, well.sf.ca.us, and netcom.com), from whom C & S purchased access. Please do NOT filter *.indirect.com; you will be penalizing everyone else who uses that service. I repeat - the ONLY relationship between indirect.com and Carter & Siegel is that of service and client. In fact, C&S is allegedly suing Internet Direct for improper termination of service. --Wes